For those of you who do not subscribe to BNA, BNA published as an "Insight" an article I wrote on QLAC and Rev Rul 2012-3 (yes, my author agreement permits me to post it here, with attribution). Look for Paul Hamburger’s upcoming related article, delving into a number of technical and policy issues they raise
Institutionalizing 408b-2 Compliance in Financial Service Firms: New Responsibilities for the Securities Compliance Professional
With all of the intense activity in the marketplace related to providing the initial 408b-2 and 404a-5 disclosures in a timely manner, there is what I could only describe as a "sea change" occurring, relatively quietly, behind the scenes in financial service firms related to the ongoing responsibilities under the DOL’s new disclosure rules. For
QLAC and the Fiduciary Standard in the Commercial Pooling of Interest
The Treasury’s issuance of proposed regulations introducing the "Qualified Longevity Annuity Contract" is a substantial step in the efforts to better provide plan participants the ability to use their defined contribution balances to plan for retirement security. One of the QLAC’s most useful effects is that it gives us a "base," a laboratory of sorts
Insurance Is Not A Product
I cringed in horror as I listened to the Supreme Court debate on health care reform, and not for the reasons you may otherwise suspect. What concerned me greatly, and which is something which ultimately has an impact on the retirement industry, was the common reference by SCOTUS (Supreme Court of
Using the IRS Interim 403(b) Document Audit Relief
I have expressed several times my sense that the 2007 403(b) regulations were unfortunate in a number of different ways. Though they sought to address some very real compliance issues, they did so in a heavy handed and often complicated way which virtually ignored the difficulties inherent in transitioning from a statutory and commercial system
The 403(b) SPARK Standard Is Not a DOL Disclosure Solution
The 403(b) regulations replaced the "contract exchange" rules under Revenue Ruling 90-24 (which allowed the tax free transfer of 403(b) contracts between different vendors, including that of different plans, as long as certain, minimal conditions were met) with a new scheme of exchanges and transfers. After September 24, 2007, the former "90-24 transfers" between unrelated
ERISA Traps Related to “Retail” Annuities Purchased by 401(k) Plans
With the current attention being paid to annuities by the recent activity of Treasury, those plan sponsors and their advisors who may be interested in annuities in their 401(k) plans may also be tempted to take a close look at the wide array of annuities that are available for the IRA and individual marketplace for
The Party-In-Interest Threshold to the “Edges” of 408(b)(2)
If plan assets are used to purchase a typewriter at Office Depot for the exclusive use by the plan in its administration by the plan sponsor (and the plan sponsor is not Office Depot, an affiliate, or its not a plan also covering Office Depot’s employees), the purchase is merely a direct expense of the
How DC Annuitization Works; Using the QLAC
I have spent much of my career studying and practicing in the law of annuities as it applies to retirement plans-starting even prior to my long stint with an insurance holding company, when the Master Trust of the Fortune 100 company for which I was in-house ERISA counsel formulated its own synthetic, pooled GIC for
Treasury and IRS Successfully Lay the Base For Lifetime Income: The “2012-3 Annuity” and The QLAC
Treasury nailed it (or, as our eldest son is fond of saying, they just "friggin’" nailed it).
With just a relatively short regulation and a Revenue Ruling, Treasury simply and in a very straightforward way laid out the definitive structure for defined contribution plans (like 401(k) plans) to start providing lifetime income in a market friendly manner. The two pieces of guidance dealing with DB plans which were issued at the same time are very useful, but the meat of the matter is the critical guidance given under the proposed RMD regulation and the spousal consent Revenue Ruling, 2012-3.
The seminal guidance doesn’t answer all the questions, but it does creates the structure, and a context, in which other questions-both from the tax and the ERISA side-can be meaningfully addressed. Amazingly, it is also structured in such a manner to accommodate both straight life annuities and the living benefit products as well (like the GLWB).
I had criticized IRS and Treasury in the past for what I had viewed as the less than thoughtful way in which they were addressing (and not addressing) critical lifetime income issues. The new releases change all of that, and–the more I look at it-in a pretty startling way. I’m not sure I have ever seen so much stuffed into so little a regulatory space.
I particularly like the proposed QLAC (“qualified lifetime annuity contract”): its an everyman’s rule. It is nonforfeitable (many argued that it be otherwise), and it is simply designed for meaningful use by the rank and file. Other, more exotic, annuities with living benefits and the like (which are generally geared for the high net worth participant) still can be used for lifetime income as 2012-3 Contracts, but they just won’t get the beneficial QLAC treatment under the RMD rule. There’s really no sane policy reason to incent those products, as such would actually serve as a disincentive to guaranteed lifetime income.
I’d like to share with you some of my initial thoughts on just what the proposed QLAC reg and Rev Rul 2012-3 did. Discussion and further study may shift some of these, but for now: